What will impact be with voters if Trump is forced to take a mug shot?
|
What will impact be with voters if Trump is forced to take a mug shot?
|
08-26-2023, 09:17 PM
(08-26-2023, 09:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Trump wasn't convicted of raping E Jean Carroll because when he did it he was a democrat, and as conservatives keep telling me we have a two-tiered justice system that only goes after republicans. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not but this is the funniest thing I've ever read from you lol. I know it's sarcasm but it's still funny. 
08-26-2023, 09:21 PM
(08-26-2023, 09:17 PM)basballguy Wrote: I'm not sure if this was intentional or not but this is the funniest thing I've ever read from you lol. I know it's sarcasm but it's still funny. I've brought this up to others when they say that democrats are corrupt and protect their own, so I guess it makes sense since when Trump was bragging about getting away with grabbing women and walking in on teen miss usa contestants and a litany of other misdeeds, he was a democrat. So saying that our justice system lets democrats get away with crimes makes it seem like everyone should agree that Trump did many things that should have resulted in prison time prior to his 2009 change to being a republican. ![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png) 
08-27-2023, 09:41 AM
(08-26-2023, 01:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Are you saying Trump didn't concede? No one, not even Gore, continued and continues to say he "really won" and everything was rigged. 1135809 conceded on 1/8. Two days after holding a rally at the capitol to try and get the results from being certified. He didn't even attend the inauguration. There is zero, no, zilch comparisons to anyone who asked for a recount and 1135809. Not even close. It's a false comparison and complete and utter waste of time. ![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif) Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self. 
08-27-2023, 11:59 AM
(08-26-2023, 05:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And a judge signed off on a search warrant for the raid in Kansas on that newspaper, but apparently that was insufficient in that thread. You guys' faith in a judge's decision seems to be largely predicated on whether you personally agree with the decision. I could point to the Dobbs decision for another example of you showing disdain for judicial competence. An inconsistent opinion is a useless opinion. Kansas raid?? What?  What additional windmills are you tilting at now?Back on topic, now we are talking about a decision you "personally" disagree with. --except this is a JURY'S decision not a judge's. And UNANIMOUS whether "needed" or not. Looks to me like the evidentiary standard was met and then some. I'm puzzled: the forum's most inconsistent opinionator suddenly plants his flag on this issue to defend Trump's honor, proclaiming "an inconsistent opinion is a useless opinion." 
08-27-2023, 12:13 PM
(08-26-2023, 05:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And a judge signed off on a search warrant for the raid in Kansas on that newspaper, but apparently that was insufficient in that thread. You guys' faith in a judge's decision seems to be largely predicated on whether you personally agree with the decision. I could point to the Dobbs decision for another example of you showing disdain for judicial competence. An inconsistent opinion is a useless opinion. A magistrate signed off on the search warrant. In Kansas, magistrates are restricted to administrative duties unlike judges who can run civil and criminal trials Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
08-27-2023, 12:26 PM
(08-26-2023, 05:28 PM)basballguy Wrote: SSP kinda already hit on this...also, the judge here is providing a personal opinion and it's not a statement of fact. ??? Judge's legal explanation of what a jury found in a trial he presided over is "personal opinion"? (08-26-2023, 05:28 PM)basballguy Wrote: But then it sounds like you're just providing speculation and opinion and not actual fact like it came across. ??? Not sure what you are saying here. Am I "speculating" about whether Trump's team forged 7 slates of false electors, or that Trump called together a mob to pressure Pence to throw the certification with the intent to illegally retain power? Seems like you are operating the distinction between "opinion" and "fact" in a rather black and white fashion. There is a difference between "opinion" supported with reason and evidence, and "just opinion," like some guy's wild guess. There is a difference between a legal "opinion" as a genre of legal writing and your "opinion" on who will win the AFC North. There is also a difference between kinds of "facts." A jury may on occasion convict an innocent person, or let a guilty person go free. That a jury renders a decision is a legal fact, certainly, but if the verdict is wrong, then what actually happened is another kind of "fact," an extra-legal one. So I don't know what you are getting at when a judge's explanation of why Carroll was judged to have been raped, in the "common understanding" of the term, seems to you just his "opinion," and then you ask me why the Trump indictments don't mention the word "coup." You were asking for "fact" rather than speculation/opinion? Perhaps you were assuming that if the word "coup" were mentioned in the indictment, then it would be a "fact" that what Trump attempted was a coup, but if not then not? And if not, then calling the attempt to overturn a valid election a "coup" would be hyperbole? Hope that's not what you are assuming, but I do want to ask. 
08-27-2023, 02:14 PM
(08-27-2023, 11:59 AM)Dill Wrote: Kansas raid?? What? You being puzzled wouldn't exactly be unprecedented. Your personal attacks are not appreciated, but I will weather them in good humor. (08-27-2023, 12:13 PM)pally Wrote: A magistrate signed off on the search warrant. In Kansas, magistrates are restricted to administrative duties unlike judges who can run civil and criminal trials Cool, just let me know which professions you trust automatically and which you don't see I can keep track.
08-27-2023, 03:29 PM
(08-27-2023, 02:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You being puzzled wouldn't exactly be unprecedented. Your personal attacks are not appreciated, but I will weather them in good humor. I didn't say one way or the other about trustworthiness. I was simply pointing out that in Kansas magistrates and judges have 2 different roles in the judicial system there and it was the magistrate, not a judge who signed off on the search warrant. Fueled by the pursuit of greatness. 
08-27-2023, 04:50 PM
(08-27-2023, 09:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: No one, not even Gore, continued and continues to say he "really won" and everything was rigged. *sighs Did you ignore the part again where i said going forward if anyone challenges the counts, that they will be charged with working to overturn the results? (08-27-2023, 12:13 PM)pally Wrote: A magistrate signed off on the search warrant. In Kansas, magistrates are restricted to administrative duties unlike judges who can run civil and criminal trials Can you provide a link saying that? I've tried to look it up and all i can find is that a Magistrate Judge and Judge have the same power, only difference is how they get there. Maybe i'm missing that info. https://www.kscourts.org/Judges/Become-a-Judge Judges of the district court are selected in one of two ways. One is by merit selection and retention vote, and the other is by partisan ballot. In either method, judges serve four-year terms.
08-27-2023, 05:25 PM
(08-27-2023, 04:50 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: *sighs I didn't ignore it...and that is why I said you can't compare what 1135809 did to what Gore did. Or anyone who challenged counts and demanded recounts. Or anyone who will in the future unless they also do all the things 1135809 is accused of. What 1135809 did is unique in the annals of Presidential elections and is being treated as such. That is why the "he was only questioning, this is a first amendment issue" has been largely blasted by most people. As many people said over the years about 1135809 you can't complain what about what he says...look at what he actually he does. Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
08-27-2023, 05:32 PM
(08-27-2023, 03:29 PM)pally Wrote: I didn't say one way or the other about trustworthiness. I was simply pointing out that in Kansas magistrates and judges have 2 different roles in the judicial system there and it was the magistrate, not a judge who signed off on the search warrant. In the KS raid we have a warrant issued within a day for multiple locations that may have gone against the law and with lots of questions attached to it including when and where it was filed. A case that is still eveolving. (Already cited in THAT thread.) In the 1135809 defamation case a SECOND Judge made clear that 1135809 committed rape AFTER the first case was heard and 1135809 was found liable. Also cited in ANOTHER thread...the one where you were asked to "change the title" for clarity...lol. So we have two completely different situations where judges did unrelated things brought up in a thread about 1135089's mug shot? Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
08-27-2023, 11:10 PM
(08-27-2023, 02:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You being puzzled wouldn't exactly be unprecedented. Your personal attacks are not appreciated, but I will weather them in good humor. No "personal attack" in my post. I didn't regard your imputing "disdain for judicial opinion," to me, as such, nor advancing my "inconsistency" for personally agreeing with a judge you personally disagree with, though I wish you'd eventually try and prove that rather than just saying it all the time. But I do wish I'd just saved this one for the future: An inconsistent opinion is a useless opinion. Still can, I guess. Meantime, carry on.
08-28-2023, 12:19 AM
(08-27-2023, 11:10 PM)Dill Wrote: No "personal attack" in my post. I didn't regard your imputing "disdain for judicial opinion," to me, as such, nor I have my flaws, that unlike yourself I acknowledge. Being inconsistent is not among them. Feel free to prove otherwise, but please actually stay on topic for a change. Also, I didn't personally disagree with the judge, I pointed out the very real and significant differences between the civil and criminal justice system. You know the kind of substantive facts you pretend to care about, but ignore when they don't serve your purpose. Stay consistent though, love you. 
08-28-2023, 09:32 AM
(08-28-2023, 12:19 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have my flaws, that unlike yourself I acknowledge. Being inconsistent is not among them. Feel free to prove otherwise, but please actually stay on topic for a change. Also, I didn't personally disagree with the judge, I pointed out the very real and significant differences between the civil and criminal justice system. You know the kind of substantive facts you pretend to care about, but ignore when they don't serve your purpose. Stay consistent though, love you. ?? Thought I had proven otherwise, on numerous occasions. E.g., unless someone else regularly hijacks your computer, you are the same guy who defends ideals of absolute free speech, but also calls for the mods to take down threads he doesn't like, or wants people stop making Nazi analogies while making them himself. The same guy who is easily triggered into angry, thread stopping personal attacks, but grouses that others are "thin-skinned" or overly sensitive to his personal attacks. I cannot think of a time you've ever admitted to your "flaws" which was not immediately followed by your leveraging this purported "self-honesty" into a claim that others aren't. When that becomes the point of such admissions, then they are just rationalizations for bad behavior, not offered in good faith, from someone who regularly and unnecessarily accuses others of "bad faith." You just brought up a magistrate's decision from another thread, addressing me as "you guys" (??) but now want ME to "stay on topic for a change" after YOU've veered us off. It's the accusation that makes for the inconsistency here, not the reference to another thread. You know I could go on with all new examples since the last time I did this, but why not just leave off the moral policing? It's fine to address flaws in arguments, if you can actually demonstrate them, but it's not fine if your real target, thread after thread, is others' imputed insincerity or "inconsistency," and you end up doing what you accuse others of doing while accusing them of doing it. So which is it: "prove otherwise" or "stay on topic--which, I guess, is not the issue of "inconsistency" that YOU introduced? If on topic, then I'd remind you that SOMEONE said the judge's explanation was "blindingly inaccurate." That sounds like a disagreement for sure. Are you going to say that was not disagreement, or that it was not a "personal" disagreement, since you were only pointing out "the very real and significant differences between civil and criminal justice"? A "professional" disagreement then. Judge just got the law wrong, or forgot the difference. Unless the height of the evidentiary bar, which I presume the judge knows very well, was not at issue in his explanation. Perhaps his point was that the jury found for defamation because they were convinced that Trump had raped Carroll, in "the common understanding of the term." Otherwise the finding would make no sense. If so, then the judge's explanation was "blindingly accurate" and your legal "correction" just beside the point. My statements are only "inaccurate" if I claim that Trump was convicted of rape. But I did not claim that. I labeled him a "rapist" just as the jury did; like them, I believe Carroll, and with the defamation judgment, I won't continue regarding the matter as if it were just "he said/she said." I guess you want to argue that the label is only "accurate" in cases of criminal conviction.
08-28-2023, 11:24 AM
(08-28-2023, 09:32 AM)Dill Wrote: ?? Thought I had proven otherwise, on numerous occasions. You haven't. You think a lot of things that don't end up being true. Like Vietnam veterans being spat upon is a myth, that it "couldn't have happened" and that is was apocryphal. Why have you dodged the following question? If Trump is a rapist because the judge said so, and they know best, then why is the Dobbs decision wrong, when it was decided by six judges? Are judges only correct when they agree with you? We all know the answer, but we also know your reply, if we actually get one, will be a fascinating display of mental gymnastics. In any event, I'm going to cease responding to your attacks on me and return to the thread topic.
08-28-2023, 11:46 AM
(08-28-2023, 11:24 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You haven't. You think a lot of things that don't end up being true. Like Vietnam veterans being spat upon is a myth, that it "couldn't have happened" and that is was apocryphal. 1) I'm sure you are taking that personally because of your father, but did Dill ever say that "couldn't have happened" to him? Or did he say there has been some studying into it and it wasn't as widespread as people may believe? 2) Here's another example of you bringing other threads into a different one for personal reasons. Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
08-28-2023, 11:53 AM
(08-28-2023, 11:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: 1) I'm sure you are taking that personally because of your father, but did Dill ever say that "couldn't have happened" to him? Or did he say there has been some studying into it and it wasn't as widespread as people may believe? Sorry, I know you feel the need to defend your friend, but he's the one who started with the personal attacks here. Also, yes, he flat out made a post that stated numerous times that it was a myth, that it couldn't have happened and that it was apocryphal. Then, in typical fashion, he claimed he never said any of that and was only quoting others. Secondly, if you're going to call out behavior than be consistent. Dill is the first person to bring other threads into this argument by attacking my posting history instead of the actual argument I was making. But you'll never, ever, call him out. If I get attacked, I am going to defend myself. Lastly, if you really want this forum to be what you claim you want then start applying your standards for behavior equally, not just to the people you don't like or disagree with. I won't be responding to this any further as you'll simply use it as "evidence" of my continuing to disrupt things.
08-28-2023, 11:57 AM
(08-28-2023, 09:32 AM)Dill Wrote: E.g., unless someone else regularly hijacks your computer, you are the same guy who defends ideals of absolute free speech, but also calls for the mods to take down threads he doesn't like I've literally never done this, ever. Why make things up? Quote:or wants people stop making Nazi analogies while making them himself. Yeah, you're going to have to show me this one. I'm sure it won't be taken out of context at all. Sorry all, but if I'm accused of doing something I don't do I do feel compelled to point that out.
08-28-2023, 12:22 PM
(08-28-2023, 11:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, I know you feel the need to defend your friend, but he's the one who started with the personal attacks here. Also, yes, he flat out made a post that stated numerous times that it was a myth, that it couldn't have happened and that it was apocryphal. Then, in typical fashion, he claimed he never said any of that and was only quoting others. Again I disagree with how you interpreted that entire discussion but I acknowledge it is personal for you, it just doesn't have anything to do with this topic. That's mainly why I responded to you first. I agree Dill should also refrain from continuing along these lines whether he is my "friend" or not. But if "applying your standards for behavior equally, not just to the people you don't like or disagree with" is going to be standard there won't be many posters left here on either side.  I'll also stop here. Back to the mug shot. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/26/trump-mugshot-fundraising-00113118 Quote:Trump raised $7.1 million after Georgia booking, mugshot A fool and his money are soon parted. And 1135809 can grift with the best of them. If he shot someone on 5th avenue he'd have the bullet up for auction that day with followers falling over each other to own it. Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
08-28-2023, 01:00 PM
Conservatives: I can't afford groceries!
also Conservatives: Donald Trump needs more of my money! We need Trump in office so we can afford our basic necessities as well as our automatic direct donations to Trump! TRUMP 20204: I'll make the economy so good you'll have more money to give to me! TRUMP = Avocado Toast for conservatives 
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
![[Image: ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2...-76752.jpg]](https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/5177787/2147483647/strip/true/crop/4050x2700+0+0/resize/630x420!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F47%2Fda%2F9ba29add43e9b999e1cfd0fc0e41%2Fgeorgia-election-indictment-76752.jpg)
![[Image: ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2...Fshare.jpg]](https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/80cb935/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1666x1333+27+0/resize/250x200!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fcf%2Fd4%2Fdbfc3f51417b8562b8dfccca8160%2Fshare.jpg)
